Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11View Post [edit]
| Poster: | grendelschoice | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 8:23am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Just let me know if you do. I could easily give equally strong reasons against him for many of the very same reasons you rail against Obama (inc. the fact you seem to ignore that McCain married an heiress, has 7 homes and no worries about $$$ either, or about how to pay for his health care, which he gets free by virtue of being a lawmaker who crafts laws to keep the insurance and medical and pharmaceutical industries flush in cash while any working Joe who has a catastrophic health problem will likely have to sell his home to pay it off).
But hey, if you think the US health care system as constituted is fine and dandy, good for you--I just hope you don;'t get seriously ill (and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic.)
Far more troubling to me is your off hand assertion, after seeing Jesus Camp, that those people pose no threat to you (or by extension the American system of government which is based on SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE) when the film clearly points out how effective and driven these people are to put religion into the very fabric of government in the U.S.
This is most clearly seen in the precarious Supreme Court makeup of mostly conservative judges and the possibility that someone like Palin could easily become the next Pres. if McCain wins, and then, based on HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, appoint the next Supreme Court judge who would tip the balance against Roe v. Wade and have back alley abortions once again become the only recourse for women to make a decision over their own bodies, even in cases of rape or incest.
That is among my reasons for not supporting this ideologically dangerous McCain-Palin ticket.
As for your other points about negotiating with rogue nations like Iran, if you think the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive unilateral military invasions based on lies to the American public to suit the administration's larger schemes for foreign regions is the better course, I hope you get used to living in wartime, because that's where all your tax dollars will be going for the rest of your lifetime.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 9:55am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | American unilaterlism and religious oppression... HAHAHA, that's classic! |
1. Punish the rich for success? How dare they succeed!
2. Liar loans are gone, they were for the benefit of
minorities and made the mortgage industry a disaster area
3. Stop frivolous lawsuits, stop illegal immigration, lowe medical costs. File bankruptcy, whatever.
4. Jesus camp?, use rubbers.
5. Seperation of church and state is a myth, the constitution actually states freedom to worship as you please and prevention of a churh (like the church of england or the vatican) from being all powerful and persuading government. It had nothing to do with religious people who believe it or not will be much nicer to unwed fornicators and pole smokers than the sharia courts will be, but let's not fight them to the death and find out in the near future like europe will.
6. Iraq: Ignore the congressional vote on authorization to use force in iraq that took significant numbers of a democratic house and half the democratic senate to pass.
Had your chance to stop it but you reelected the retards and added more in 2006, the lowest approval rating in history, great job!
Ignore the 16 violatioins of UN resolutions, because the UN is a fucking joke.
And lastly, ignore the following countries who also went along with us "unilaterally":
United Kingdom
Poland
South Korea
Romania
Australia
El Salvador
Albania
Bulgaria
Mongolia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Denmark
Armenia
Macedonia
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Czech Republic
Moldova
Norway
Latvia
Singapore
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Japan
Norway
Portugal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Thailand
Hungary
New Zealand
Iceland
Also without standing payments of their own the following countries' citizens volunteered in small numbers in our army:
Marshall Islands
Solomon Islands
Kiribati- My personal favorite
Federated States of Micronesia
How unilateral is that?
I know it's a stacked deck of countries that we have nuked, invaded, liberated or fought along side of, sorry.
I just wish the russians, chinese, north koreans, cubans, venezuelans and iranians could have been on board but I thing they might have an agenda, ya think?
Charlie Wilson helped free some of them above from soviet tyranny by arming and training mujahadeen, eventually creating the taliban and 9/11...
As for preemption, I am sure that the millions of jews, slavs, poles, gypsies, disabled and homosexuals in germany are glad we did not have an asshole like bush in the whitehouse.
I am sure the chinese shishkabob kids on imperial japanese bayonets, forced korean prostitutes, and shell shocked philipinos were glad there were no evil republicans running things back then.
I am sure the anti communism in viet nam appreciate jfk and lbj's awesome win the war strategy there. No let's protest against ourselves and not win a war we are already in. Are you fucking joking?
You cannot erase history, too many of us know about it.
Oh and I know, Mccain got involved with some democrats 25 years ago and most of them got in trouble. LYNCH HIM, HE IS EVIL.
Please stop saying catch phrases that are not true.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 9:35am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Now come on, Grendel, this is where you are showing your mounting rage and moving the goalposts for convenience sake, allowing you to "respond" to something I never said. Saying I don’t want a nationalized healthcare system is hardly the same thing as saying I think the current one is fine and dandy.
Interesting, though, that you seem upset at the idea that the big med companies are ‘flush with cash”. What are you suggesting should be their financial state? Dirt poor? Bankrupt? Making just enough to get by (with the Obamessiah and his minions of course being the ones to decide just how much ‘enough” is)?
You're also welcome to think I'm nuts for being so flippant about the wacky Jesus camp people, but I'll get back to you on that when they start "martyring" themselves in large numbers by setting off car bombs around my town several times a week. There is no threat from the religious right- yes there are rubes and nut cases, as I have stated, but the idea that there is a large scale threat coming from this direction is a complete fabrication. As for Palin, if she appointed a justice that helped dump Roe v. Wade, so what? Why is the federal government in involved in conversations about abortion at all? Send it back to the states where it belongs.
That’s at least fifth definition of the so-called “Bush doctrine” I’ve seen, though. Seems that the “doctrine” is whatever the speaker says it is. Nice.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | grendelschoice | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 9:38am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
and while we're parsing what we each say (a fruitless exercise, but we seem committed to it) what i meant about the health care system was insurance companies that collect huge fees from their cutomers and do not deliver the protection people need when they become seriously ill...HMO's that, because they are first and foremost in the business of making money and NOT curing or keeping people from getting sick, will fight insurance claims tooth and nail...I mean pharm. companies that pay doctors huge fees and lavish them w/gifts in order to dole out their products, even if they're not the best for the patient...yes, I would like to see those facets of the medical industry less well endowed b/c they are not helping people. It boils down to philosophy...if you really think nationalized health care for citizens is wrong...we must agree to disagree...but every major industrialized nation besides the U.S. opts for a national health service, and while there ARE problems (i.e. long waiting lists for elective procedures) the bottom line is no one in France, Germany, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Japan, etc., etc. on and on is going to lose their home just b/c they had a heart attack and they don't have health insurance --as 42 million americans don't--or b/c their insurance company tries to cite some kind of pre-existing condition as reason for not covering their care, or bypass surgery, or what have you. And those people in those nationalized health care countries who do believe their health care is sub-par can opt to pay more for private coverage. They at least have a choice.
As for shifting the debate from religious zealotry affecting laws to car bombers, let's be clear that I'm no fan of car bombers. But I do not favor "letting the states" decide what a woman can or can't do with her own body. Because that makes it even easier for the religious wing nuts, esp. in rural southern states, to elect those people who would outlaw abortion and put women's lives at risk. As a man, it's easy for you to be cavalier about such things, but i guarantee if you were capable of bearing children, got raped and pregnant, and your state govt. told you you couldn't abort b/c God says 'no', you'd tell them to go straight to hell.
Religious zealotry, whether it's for Islam, Christianity (what about anti-abortionists who've shot and killed dotors who perform abortions--are they not terrorists?), Judaism, or Tom cruise scientologists, IS a danger, and has no place in government.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 10:25am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | enough with the unilateral lies |
senate majority (50% of dems for)
United Kingdom
Poland
South Korea
Romania
Australia
El Salvador
Albania
Bulgaria
Mongolia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Denmark
Armenia
Macedonia
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Czech Republic
Moldova
Norway
Latvia
Singapore
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Japan
Norway
Portugal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Thailand
Hungary
New Zealand
Iceland
All by myslef, I wanna be all by myself...
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 10:59am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
The problem with the insurance industry- the only industry I can think of that makes its money by NOT providing its service – is acknowledged by all sides, but the leap from that to a government takeover of roughly one-seventh of the US economy is both illogical and ill conceived. You correctly identify just a couple of the substantial, if less publicized, drawbacks to nationalized system;
While I’m certainly not cavalier about the abortion issue, let’s be real: the real fear that Roe v. Wade might someday be overturned doesn’t have anything to do rape, incest, or the life of the mother- it’s about abortion on demand and abortion as a form of birth control, two central demands of left wing feminists- a core constituency of the Democratic party. I also reject the rather tired notion that because I am a man and my point of view is different that somehow it is rendered irrelevant.
We do agree about all forms of religious zealotry being a concern, and yes, we also agree about radical anti-abortionists being terrorists, although such events are thankfully quite rare, and rarer still are such people acting in concert with one another and not as deranged individuals. However, when I measure the threat level to my family’s health and well being, Islamic fundamentalists are a mortar shell, whereas right-wing Christians are more like a spitball. Also, while I don’t necessarily agree with everything she believes in, by no means do I consider Palin a religious zelot.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 11:16am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Vice President Dick Cheney's Incredible and Deadly Lie: By Deceiving a Congressional Leader, Cheney Sent Us to War on False Pretenses And Violated the Separation of Powers - as Well as the Criminal Law
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Sept. 19, 2008
This week, I agreed to deliver a "Constitution Day" talk on a college campus. My talk was not partisan. Yet the subject matter I selected was prompted by the most incredible - not to mention the most deadly - lie Dick Cheney has yet told, which was reported earlier this week.
Last year, Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman and Jo Baker, now of the New York Times, did an extensive series for the Post on Cheney. Now, Gellman has done some more digging, and published the result in a book he released this week: Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. The book reveals a lie told to a high-ranking fellow Republican, and the difference that lie made. In this column, I'll explain how Cheney defied the separation of powers, and go back to the founding history to show why actions like his matter so profoundly.
Cheney's Bold Face Lie To Congress
According to Gellman (and to paraphrase from the Post story on his finding), in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the White House was worried about the stance of Republican Majority Leader Richard Armey of Texas, who had deep concerns about going to war with Saddam Hussein. According to the Post, Armey met with Cheney for a highly classified, one-on-on briefing, in Room H-208, Cheney's luxurious hideaway office on the House side of the Capitol.
During this meeting, the Post reports, Cheney turned Armey around on the war issue. Cheney did so by telling the House Majority Leader that he was giving him information that the Administration could not tell the public -- namely (according to Armey), that Iraq had the "'ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,' which had been 'substantially refined since the first Gulf War,' and would soon result in 'packages that could be moved even by ground personnel.' In addition, Cheney linked that threat to Saddam's alleged personal ties to al Qaeda, explaining that 'we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda.'"
The Post story continues, "Armey has asked: "Did Dick Cheney ... purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?" His answer: "I seriously feel that may be the case...Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening."
In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation's fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.
Cheney's monumental dishonesty, the news of which has been buried under the current meltdown of the nation's economy, did not strike me as a topic for a Constitution Day speech. But a realistic discussion of the working of the separations of powers did seem a fitting topic, for college students need to understand the basics of our system. After we remind ourselves of those basics, Cheney's great lie can be viewed not only as a great immorality and violation of the criminal code, but also and more fundamentally as the significant breach of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution that it is.
Our Constitutional Separation of Powers
Historians, not to mention contemporary historical documents, establish that no issue was more important to the founders of our national government than that of what its structure should be. Accordingly, in anticipation of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, James Madison of Virginia plowed through historical accounts of governments and concluded that there are three basic forms of government: monarchy (the one), oligarchy (an elite few) and democracy (the many). Each form, however, had serious drawbacks.
As a result, Madison sought to take the best of each to create a "republic" - as had been done in varying degrees with many of the American colonies. Republics, of course, had been around a long time, for they were the forms employed by the Greeks and Romans. Thus, the republic was a form of government those who were meeting in Philadelphia well understood, in which sovereignty resides with the people who elect agents to represent them in the political decision-making process.
Madison's republic combined elements of each type of government, in a mixing of forms. It featured an executive who incorporated the strength of monarchy without the evils of a King; a Senate that embodied the wisdom of an oligarchy; and a House that balanced the self-interest of such elites with a throng of representatives who spoke for the people of the nation.
Many delegates at the founding convention were mistrustful of a pure democracy since none had worked well in the past; moreover, the country was too large and diverse to directly involve everyone. Later, Madison nicely explained the differences in Federalist No. 14: "[I]n a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region."
Most importantly, Madison's structure had three separate branches of the government - legislative, executive and judicial -- and each branch was empowered to check and balance the others, and thereby diffuse power.
Madison's system, however, has not worked as designed even in the best of times, not to mention when there is an all-powerful Vice President hell-bent on gaming the system.
The Reality of Separation of Powers
An article in the June 2006 Harvard Law Journal -- Daryl J. Levinson and Richard H. Pildes, "Separation of Parties, Not Powers," Harvard Law Journal (Jun. 2006) 2311 -- provides one of the better analyses out there of the real-world workings of the separation of powers, and their accompanying checks and balances. Professors Levinson and Pildes argue that Madison's vision of separation of powers has, in fact, been trumped in America by political parties. Their point is well taken, but as I see it their conclusion is far more applicable to the Republicans than the Democrats.
"The success of American democracy overwhelmed the Madisonian conception of separation of powers almost from the outset, preempting the political dynamics that were supposed to provide each branch with a 'will of its own' that would propel departmental '[a]mbition … to counteract ambition'," Levinson and Pildes explain. This, in turn, they argue, made the underlying theory of the government - separation of powers - largely "anachronistic."
When they looked at government, however, they found that when different political parties control the different branches - creating a divided government - then the parties working through those branches still do operate as Madison had hoped. Why? By sifting through the work of noted political scientists, Levinson and Pildes have concluded that it is not on behalf of protecting the institutional powers that the checking and balancing occurs; rather, it is through the influence of party politics operating through that divided branch.
I believe, based on the record (and as someone who worked on the Hill when Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue) that Levinson and Pildes have it half right.
Democrats under unified government (i.e., when Democrats control both Congress and the White House) have been remarkably institutionally-minded, and the separation of powers has remained viable. On the other hand, conservative Republicans - as I have explained in my book Broken Government (just out in paperback too) - easily place party loyalty before the responsibilities of the governmental institution in which they serve. The first six years of the Bush/Cheney Administration, for example, were a travesty in Republican denial of institutional responsibilities. In contrast, there is a long list of Democratic House and Senate Chairmen who have a on-going history of refusing to be the rubber-stamps of Democratic Presidents.
For instance, unlike in the situation where Cheney lied to former Majority Leader Armey, when both the Democratic House and Senate suspected that President Lyndon Johnson had lied to them about the incident(s) in the Gulf of Tonkin that provoked Congress to authorize the war in Viet Nam, they took action. In contrast, Republicans have not acted on Cheney's lie to Armey - and surely Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman is not the first person to learn about this lie.
Why Cheney Is Not Likely To Be Held Accountable
Those of us who follow these matters have long known - and I have written before - that it is Dick Cheney who is molding his hapless and naive president to his will, by effecting endless expansions of Presidential powers, and acting upon Cheney's total disregard of the separation of powers.
Cheney does not seem to believe the Constitution applies to "real leaders," who do whatever they believe they must do. Nor does he believe in the separation of powers. Indeed, Cheney absurdly claims he is himself part of the Legislative Branch because he is the presiding officer of the Senate - though, in practice, that position exists only to break tie votes. It has long been clear that Cheney has been corruptly bridging the constitutional separation of powers throughout the Bush/Cheney presidency.
If Armey is right, Dick Cheney has not only behaved improperly, but also criminally: In addition, when lying to Armey, Cheney clearly committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" in his blocking the Constitution's checks and balances from stopping our march into Iraq. During the debates that took place during the Constitution's ratification conventions, it was specifically stated that lying to Congress about matters of war would be an impeachable offense. Congress has also made it a crime.
Nonetheless, nothing is likely to happen to Cheney, for Congress is too busy dealing with the disastrous economy that he and Bush are leaving behind as they head for the door. No one seems inclined to hold Cheney responsible, and he appears totally unconcerned about the wrath of history. Yet in lying even to those in his own party, about reasons to go to war, he has sunk to a low level few have reached, and it is no hyperbole to call his actions treasonous to the structure and spirit of the Republic.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 12:47pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
First, if Armey feels he was misled, he's a little late in the game to say so.
Second, it certainly matters if Cheney told him something he knew to be false...but that is different than simply acting on bad intelligence.
Sounds like some post mortem CYA by Armey and some verbal flatulence about separation of powers by John Dean- nothing more.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with the fact that Barrack Obama should be kept as far from the White House as possible.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 1:30pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
McCain reacts to crisis without regard for facts
GEORGE F. WILL
Article Last Updated: 09/23/2008 01:39:47 AM PDT
The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
— "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
WASHINGTON — Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high.
It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked The Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" — disconnected from knowledge and principle — had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19, page A22). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."
Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There, he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Congressman Cox, who as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.
In any case, McCain's smear — that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" — is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive — there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending.
By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas.
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."
The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale.
Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?
On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York, the son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
George Will writes for the Washington Post
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 1:50pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 2:46pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
My words - McCain lacks the proper judgment to be Commander-in-Chief and his decision to pick Palin as his VP was a cynical political play that was not made in the best interests of the country. While Obama is far from my choice for the White House (tigerbolt and I traded some stuff on this a few months back), I do think he will surround himself with a competent team whereas competence is the very last thing I've seen from the GOP over the past several years. Then again, when you don't believe in government, it's kind of hard to govern.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 6:45am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
To suggest that McCain is somehow more politically calculating that Obama is flat out preposterous. Obama has done nothing since joining the US Senate expect prepare himself for this presidential run by coating his broad, sweeping, feel-good rhetoric in a coating of “present” votes to give him coverage on the specifics. As I stated yesterday and as his own evolution shows, he’s an Alinskyite, hiding his radical left intentions in order to postion himself on the inside. As far as Palin goes, her experience as a decisive executive absolutely trumps Obama’s history of non-votes. There’s no question in my mind that Obama will surround himself with a team just as devoted to moving America in the wrong direction as he is.
BTW- I never said I don’t believe in government- what I don’t believe is that government holds within it the solution to every one of society’s ills.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:17pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Have you looked into this fully?
Please don't make a mistake at a time like this.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:22pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 7:27am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Why do I get the feeling if he’d been bombing abortion clinics or union halls you’d feel differently? The fact that the FBI fucked up does nothing to change the fact that Ayers is a terrorist of the same makeup, if not ideology, as Mohammed Atta. But yet he’s a hero to the leftist academia in this country. Tells me all I need to know about any “team” the Obamassiah might assemble.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | rastamon | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 7:32am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Any vote of mine will consider his liberalism & voting record and very little on his actual personal faith, be it Muslim or radical christianity.
Christ was a community organizer?, so was Hitler.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | Bob Gnarley | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 7:37am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
http://www.che-mart.com/lifestyle.php
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | rastamon | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 7:44am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 8:50am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | Bob Gnarley | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 9:00am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 9:27am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | Bob Gnarley | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 9:45am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 10:46am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 8:57am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
"William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."
--Former counterterrorism official Larry C. Johnson, The Huffington Post, Feb. 16, 2008.
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts
The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine." Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."
The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 1:06pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Guess who said this in 2005 |
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
Attachment: hope.JPG
Attachment: gorev3.jpg
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | rastamon | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 3:31pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Guess who said this in 2005 |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:50pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:56pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo&feature=related
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | spacedface | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 2:08pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
You'll be OK (sorry for the African word) if you know and work through the Five Stages Of Grief:
* 1. Denial.
* 2. Anger.
* 3. Bargaining.
* 4. Depression.
* 5. Acceptance.
http://www.memorialhospital.org/library/general/stress-THE-3.html
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:23pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
“The St Andrew flag, the flag of the Russian Navy, is confidently returning to the world oceans,” said Igor Dygalo, a spokesman for the Russian Navy. He declined to comment on Russian newspaper reports that nuclear submarines were also part of the expedition.
The voyage to join the Venezuelan Navy for operations came only days after Russian strategic nuclear bombers made their first visit to the country. Hugo Chavez, the President, said then that the arrival of the strike force was a warning to the U.S. The anti-American Venezuelan leader is due to visit Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow this week as part of a tour that includes visits to Cuba and China.
Peter the Great is armed with 20 nuclear cruise missiles and up to 500 surface-to-air missiles, making it one of the most formidable warships in the world. The Kremlin has courted Venezuela and Cuba as tensions with the West soared over the proposed U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe and the Russian invasion of Georgia last month.
I know this is off topic but I just wanted to paste something.
Aren't you all glad the boys decided to politicize?
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:28pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:31pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: More liberal media bias against McCain |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:35pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Are you really saying that the republicans did not send 30 lawyers to chicago to dig up dirt on obama?
Vote present in 08
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:29pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:43pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:48pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
If you have a passion for fashion, if you have a craving for savings, take the wheel of your automobile and swing on down to ideal.
And I am joe carchone, your green grocer with the tip of the day.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:26pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | IS this the guy? |
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He was convicted of multiple felonies as a result of Watergate, and went on to become a key witness for the prosecution, resulting in a reduction of his time in jail.
If so, a very reliable source.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:34pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: IS this the guy? |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:39pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: IS this the guy? |
1. Joy Behar -http://www.archive.org/download/bigbangmachine/02_behardouche_vbr.mp3
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:42pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: IS this the guy? |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:38pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: IS this the guy? |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | spacedface | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 2:12pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
No way. Don't believe the hype from our government or others. It was clearly false from the beginning.
Dave Chappelle got your yellow cake, son:
http://www.spike.com/video/black-bush/2795970
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 7:53am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Quick question though, Chumpsky: is it embarassing to on the side of evil and wrong all the time, or just depressing?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq
Assciated Press
updated 6:57 p.m. ET, Sat., July. 5, 2008
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.
Secret mission
The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.
Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.
"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 8:50am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
“I thought that [ad] was terrible by the way. I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it”
"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."
"Stand up Chuck!"
“You need to work on your pecs.”
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
"I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about, John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John, what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there."
"We’re not supporting clean coal, China is gonna burn three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it's going to ruin your lungs and there's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there make 'em clean because they're killing you."
"I think John McCain would be a great candidate for vice president. I mean it. I know John doesn't like me saying it, but the truth of the matter is, it is"
"I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain – a Republican – on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along and they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies."
"I'm sticking with McCain, I think the single most important thing that John Kerry has to do is … to say that makes sense, that guy could be president, or that woman could be president. I think that's the single most important thing for people, when he or she is announced, say that person could be president."
“There’s less than one percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than four of five percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you’re dealing with.”
"I feel passionate about what I'm doing and saying. I know the Republicans are going to take anything I say, no matter what it would be or anybody, and take it out of context," Biden said. "They are going to take any piece and if I have to parse through every single thing I'm going to say, then I'm not me."
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | ashleycory | Date: | Feb 12, 2009 3:56am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.lincenergy.us
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | MikeKateWilson_12k | Date: | Jan 7, 2009 2:49am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | American Clean Coal |
"The forums offered an international platform for technological, financial and management cooperation, and will help accelerate the development of coal industry upgrade for Shanxi," said Cheng Zeye, chief economist of the Shanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission.
Follow the Link:lincenergy.us/
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | the_full_monte | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 11:07am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
Hilarious!
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | bluedevil | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 11:46am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | Edsel | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 12:17pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 12:48pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Biden's ramblings... or are they? |
Oh I forgot up is down, wrong is wright, etc.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 10:28am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Ohhh a personal attack, sorry, does seem like he isn't absorbing the facts laid out over and over and over.
United Kingdom
Poland
South Korea
Romania
Australia
El Salvador
Albania
Bulgaria
Mongolia
Azerbaijan
Tonga
Denmark
Armenia
Macedonia
Ukraine
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Estonia
Czech Republic
Moldova
Norway
Latvia
Singapore
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Japan
Norway
Portugal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Thailand
Hungary
New Zealand
Iceland
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | spacedface | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 2:25pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
"As for preemption, I am sure that the millions of jews, slavs, poles, gypsies, disabled and homosexuals in germany are glad we did not have an asshole like bush in the whitehouse.
I am sure the chinese shishkabob kids on imperial japanese bayonets, forced korean prostitutes, and shell shocked philipinos were glad there were no evil republicans running things back then.
I am sure the anti communism in viet nam appreciate jfk and lbj's awesome win the war strategy there. No let's protest against ourselves and not win a war we are already in. Are you fucking joking?
You cannot erase history, too many of us know about it."
Anybody with even a vague knowledge of history knows those statements are mixed up.
Keeping with your analogy, Bush would have declared war on Russia instead of Hitler and Japan!
The Vietnam police action was phony from at least the Gulf of Tonkin incident on. LBJ was no less successful than Kissinger and Nixon. Credibility gaps were aplenty.
Nixon's "peace with honor" was just a campaign slogan and cover for more lies and murder. While that war started from some legitimate motives (eg, defending the southern ethnicities of Vietnam from the Chinese-oriented north), it would have required much finesse since the south was riddled with corruption. A reign of terror couldn't work.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | NoiseCollector | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 3:18pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Please share the hallucinagens.
I was tripping in school but I watched the history channel to make up for it.
Put down the blotter and come home.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | spacedface | Date: | Sep 23, 2008 11:11pm |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
Noise: >>When hitler first marched into czechosovakia, we should have attacked russia? >>>
You're not paying attention.
Bush would have attacked Russia (~Iraq). Get it, he doesn't keep his eyes on the prize.
Reply [edit]
| Poster: | grendelschoice | Date: | Sep 24, 2008 3:27am |
| Forum: | GratefulDead | Subject: | Re: Tolerance, unless they don't like you |
I admire your pluck, but in trying to reason w/NC you're dealing with an impossible situation.
Anyone who tries to liken what Bush & Co. did: lying to the American public about non-existent WMD for the purpose of invading Iraq...with anything that happened in WW2 is just a hopeless apologist for the Bush clan.
I know many people who proudly call themselves Republicans who nevertheless admit that what the Bush administration did is unprecedented in its disdain for the truth and contempt for the American public.
They may not agree with me on the best way out of the mess, but they do agree that lying about the reasons for going (WMD), then changing their tune late in the game to "liberating freedom-loving Iraqis" is a slap in the face to anyone who expects a US Democracy to be better than the rest of the governments around the world who flout Democratic values.
